Killing bin Laden a Campaign Feather for Obama, So What

BHO-Cabinet watching bin Laden take-down

John R. Houk

© May 4, 2012


Burr Deming sent me a post via email that was also posted on Fair and UNbalanced (aka FU). As you can tell by the play on words that FU is the Liberal antithesis of Fair and Balanced which is the motto for FOX News.


Burr criticizes Romney and Conservative Republicans for whining that President Barack Hussein Obama is using the seek and destroy mission by SEAL Team 6 of Osama bin Laden as a political feather in his campaign cap. Burr uses history to back his criticism of Romney to defend Obama and Liberal Democrats.


As usual the top of the list for liberals is to criticize Bush for failing an opportunity to take out bin Laden’s chief lieutenant al-Zawahiri. Then a quick look at What Would Carter Do or a What Would Have a President Gore Have Done.


I have to agree it was idiotic not to take out al-Zawahiri. AND the one thing Carter did right was to make the effort to free Iran Embassy Hostages. Carter’s “GO” failed but the effort was made. However, if Carter would have supported the Shah there would have been no hostage take-over of the U.S. Embassy in Iran in the first place.


Burr says this about if Gore was President:


A conservative acquaintance argued that a President Gore would not have had the ability to rally conservatives as President Bush had rallied liberals. I explained that his argument was based on an unjust assumption: that conservatives lacked the simple patriotism that liberals were showing in abundance. His only response was a blank uncomprehending stare. I had just said something in an unfamiliar language. It was quite beyond him. (Emphasis Mine)


The Conservative acquaintance was speechless because he was dumbfounded that a Liberal could possess Patriotism in abundance. Making ugly epithets about military personal is not an abundance of Patriotism (you know e.g. baby killers, murderers and the such thinking). I think a civilized response to such a deceptive statement would have been beyond me. Now a blood boiling response would probably have been my response. Hindsight has shown Gore’s Patriotism is the Eco-Marxist junk based on Global Warming (NOT A SURE THING as Gore would have dupes believe).


I believe the missed opportunity to apprehend or kill al-Zawahiri (SA HERE) referenced by Burr is in 2005. I suspect the reasoning Bush used to call off the military expedition in Pakistan had a greater purpose than to simply worry if the Pakistan government would be angry over a unilateral intrusion on their sovereign territory. Pakistan is hardly a unified nation in its government infrastructure. In 2005 Pakistan was dealing with rebels in Baluchistan that wanted autonomy or independence. Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and North West Frontier Province (NWFP) were areas of Pakistan that the Pakistan government only had nominal control over. In that year Pakistan attempted to gain more of an administrative control over by engaging Taliban tribal leaders that by this time had great sympathy for the Afghan Taliban tribal leaders driven out of power by American led NATO allies warring against the old One-Eyed Mullah Omar. It was a big dent on the Pakistan military to have tribal leaders controlling administration more than the Pakistan government especially because of arch-enemy India. Such weakness might encourage India to step-up military control in Pakistan-India disputed Kashmir.


The year 2005 was still a pivotal time in America’s agenda to court Pakistan’s aid in battling the Global War on Terrorism in Afghanistan. Openly going into Pakistan with a mission to take out al-Zawahiri would promote yet more of an image of weakness internationally for Pakistan. By all appearances at this time it appeared Pakistan was taking steps to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Hindsight has shown us that Pakistan’s engagement of Pakistani Taliban had more to do with international perceptions than defeating the Taliban. By 2006 the Pakistan government had made an internal peace with the Pakistani Taliban with the so-called Waziristan Accord. I suspect by 2006 the Bush Administration began to doubt Pakistan’s outright commitment to fighting the Global War on Terrorism; however America was already on the hook to Pakistan.


By the time Obama had to also consider Pakistan’s commitment to being America’s ally the byzantine of nature of the Pakistan government and the autonomous nature of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) pro-Taliban stand, it was a bit easier to ignore Pakistan’s sovereignty issues. And so it was good, indeed awesome, that Obama gave the okay for SEAL Team 6 to take out Osama bin Laden.


As to criticizing Romney, I am on Burr’s side. I am not voting for Obama anyway. Weighing the great Obama decision to take out bin Laden with all the bad decisions in making America appear weak internationally by unnecessary apologizing and humbling toward foreign leaders and the Obama agenda to disregard the Constitution in bringing about Leftist Change in America, totally submerges the great decision to take out bin Laden. I am voting for Romney not because he is the better candidate than our current President, but because he is the only candidate to bring down the Obama Administration.


As a Conservative I have trust issues with Mitt Romney, but I have absolute distrust of President Barack Hussein Obama.


JRH 5/4/12

Please Support NCCR